514 F. App'x 154
3d Cir.2013Background
- Zied-Campbell and Campbell appeal district court dismissal of their original and amended complaints, filed in forma pauperis.
- They have a long history of litigation over federal and state medical and disability benefits, with prior related Third Circuit decisions.
- The district court dismissed the complaints as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
- The court noted the prolix, repetitive, and precluded claims, many already decided in prior actions.
- The Third Circuit affirmatively held the district court did not abuse its discretion and that certain claims were properly dismissed as frivolous or lacking plausibility.
- The dismissal was without prejudice to pursuing certain state-law claims in state court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether dismissal as frivolous under §1915(e)(2)(B) was proper. | Zied-Campbell argues for reversal of dismissal. | Campbell argues dismissal was warranted due to frivolous, repetitive claims. | Yes; the district court did not abuse its discretion. |
| Whether questions against the court and its personnel are barred by immunity. | Claims for damages arising from handling of Richman appeal. | Judicial/quasi-judicial immunity bars such claims and constitutes collateral attack. | Barred and frivolous. |
| Whether plaintiffs plausibly alleged a federal claim based on Medicare termination in retaliation. | Termination alleged as retaliatory federal claim. | Plaintiffs failed to plead a plausible federal claim or amended pleading. | Not pleaded plausibly; dismissed. |
| Whether state-law malpractice claims lack federal jurisdiction and should be dismissed without prejudice. | State-law malpractice claims should proceed in federal court. | No federal basis to exercise jurisdiction; claims should be dismissed without prejudice. | Dismissal without prejudice; may pursue in state court. |
| Whether the district court properly declined supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims. | Jurisdiction should extend to all claims. | No basis for supplemental jurisdiction once federal claims fail. | Properly declined; state-court path available. |
Key Cases Cited
- Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989) (frivolous or malicious filings may be dismissed sua sponte)
- Gallas v. Supreme Court of Pa., 211 F.3d 760 (3d Cir. 2000) (judicial immunity bars damages against judicial officers)
- Capogrosso v. Supreme Ct. of N.J., 588 F.3d 180 (3d Cir. 2009) (plaintiff must plead plausible federal claim to survive screening)
- Borough of West Mifflin v. Lancaster, 45 F.3d 780 (3d Cir. 1995) (supplemental jurisdiction limitations when federal claims fail)
- Osei-Afriyie v. Medical College of Pa., 937 F.2d 876 (3d Cir. 1991) (pro se status of parents cannot improvise federal standing for child)
- Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25 (Supreme Court 1992) (abuse-of-discretion standard for IFP dismissal)